10/15/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Decker stated that the Downtown Commission had met on October 11 to review e the Planning Commission recommendations and had added some comments at that time. She said the comments will be incorporated into the material distributed to the City Council in preparation for the October 22 pUblic hearing. Respond- ing to several issues raised by the City Council at a previous meeting, Ms. Decker reviewed the items and presented brief comments, adding that staff will more fully address those issues at the public hearing. In response to a question by Councilor Schue regarding the proposed two-way traffic on Willamette Street between 10th and 11th avenues and eventually down to 20th Avenue, Mr. Neustadter said the suggestion was tied into an earlier recommendation. He said that two-way traffic on Willamette Street will improve access to the downtown and will recreate the importance of Willamette Street. Referring to Mr. Rutan's comments that more facts were necessary before making any decision on reopening Willamette Street between 10th ~nd 11th avenues, Councilor Holmer asked Mr. Rutan to elaborate. Mr. Rutan stated that considera- tions regarding Lane Transit District were raised in the public testimony recei ved. He said that the concerns were presented by LTO in an open fashion, adding that concerns by Lane Community College also existed. He sa i d the issue of the benefits of the reopening balanced against the money spent must be considered. Mr. Thwing said the design element also addressed the timing of the implementation, stating that a great deal of money would be spent to change the location of LTD and the entrance to LCC. He said the commission felt that these institutions should be given adequate time to save their money e for the projects. Councilor Wooten, in an attempt to clarify the respective positions of the two commissions on the proposed reopening, said that the Planning Commission had not given a high priority or directive for the reopening but had described a process different from that of the Downtown Commission. Ms. Decker clari- fied, saying the two processes were identical, explaining that the Planning Commission's process recommended that design alternatives which do not involve reopening Willamette Street should also be considered while the Downtown Commission recommended that only the design alternatives for reopening the street would be considered. Referring to Item 11 on page 2 of the Revisions and Errata, Councilor Ehrman said the council felt that City staff was doing a good job in maintaining the ma 11 . She asked if the proposed strategy addressed public or private measures. Ms. Anderson said the proposed strategy was in response to testimony compli- menting the cleanliness of the downtown and the need to maintain that image. Mr. Rutan said the two commissions attempted to develop a plan in response to public testimony. He said the council may want to refer this issue for staff action. Mr. Schwartz explained that Items 10 and lIon page 2 of the Revisions and Errata would be strategies added to the plan. Councilor Schue said she perceived that City staff was performing a good job but that private owners could be more concerned with enhancing the image of the downtown. Mr. Rutan stated that the language could be clarified. Councilor Wooten stated that the council had considered removing several minor items in the draft because they were viewed as not being appropriate to the long-term plan. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council, Planning Commission, Downtown Commission October 15, 1984 Page 3